On January 27 2014 01:52 SiroKO wrote: Interisting marxist opinion on the subject from a French polemist (Alain Soral).
Fr SUB Eng.
Overall Soral is a pretty hateful caracter. I've seen him talk on various topic and each time I've always thought he was nothing but a paranoid man.
But damn his arguments in this video are really, really strong. The end with the opposition between Simone De Beauvoir & Louise Michel made it for me.
Wow, I'm genuinely disappointed that you're falling for the bs arguments he presents in the video. First, he deliberately misrepresents feminism, which is not a struggle against men but a struggle for equality and against a system which currently does not allow both genders to strive equally. Second, his entire argument is based on the idea that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. The point is that 1) many prefer not to be, or at least to be given a choice; 2) even without feminism, many would not be able to be stay-at-home mothers precisely because they need to work to survive (this addresses what he says with regards to poorer households - it's not feminism which forces the poorer women to work, it's the capitalist system); 3) the idea that it is the woman who would necessarily have to stay at home is sexist in itself. If we lived in the scenario he refers to, in which one of the two members of the family could stay at home, why would it have to be the woman?
Frankly, the gaping holes in his ridiculously flawed argument are so obvious I'm surprised you fell for them.
It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video.
But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services).
The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women?
I agree with you overall, but you know the French revolution was quite a disaster, completly discarded by most XIXth century leftist as a revolution for and by bourgeois. By contrast, the episode of "La commune" is describe as a real revolution of the worker class. That we all accept feminism as social progress doesn't mean it is not something that needs to be pushed further, just like I consider the french revolution as a huge part of France's history, without considering that it is a religious event free of any critic.
I never said that aspects of feminist thinking cannot be criticized - in fact, as we both know, feminism as a whole is made of plenty of currents which do not necessarily agree with each other on plenty of things. My point was that the argument that feminism should be discarded because it benefits bourgeois women is flawed, because 1) it does not only benefit bourgeois women, and 2) the reason it can "benefit" bourgeois women more is found in the system in which feminism finds itself and not in feminism.
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ?
The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women.
Why front national ? Just read Marx and the idea of starvation wage : if one person in the household is working, the starvation wage must be high enough to keep the familly alive. I'm completly disregarding any economic theory because I don't believe at all that wages are defined by economic matters but by social matters (like Smith, Ricardo and Marx). One good proof for that is that when women accessed to position in power, like in legal department, we saw a decrease in overall wage that was, from my point of view, due to the fact that women have less bargaining power than men.
Yes, they are indeed determined by social variables as well, which is precisely an aspect of feminist struggle - pushing those variables in the right direction. But what I was saying was that the thought experiment "let's take our society without women working, all other things being equal, and see how wages look" doesn't work, because without women working our society wouldn't look the same in the first place. Besides, let's admit for one second that you could make that experiment, and that society would be the same except that men would have doubled their wages. Why should men be the ones with jobs in the first place? Why shouldn't men stop working in order for women to have their "doubled wages"? The root of the argument that women should not be working is inherently sexist (I think we agree on that).
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men.
First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over.
Women entering the workforce was welcomed by dominant class, and needed, in time of war. What was difficult to accept for societies is to open positions of power and well paid positions to women.
Yes, but Soral is precisely subsuming "accessing positions of power", and the rest of what feminists have fought for in terms of working rights and opportunities for women, under "entering the workforce", as if all of it had been welcomed by the "system".
On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide.
But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis.
Maybe I didn't listened enough.
I agree with most of your point, I'm not saying that feminism was a regression in any way nor that it is responsible for anything bad in regards to inequalities between class or race. But I still think that within feminism there are various point of view, and that some of them are indeed strictly defined by bourgeois values.
For exemple, french marxists (like Michel Clouscard) back in the eighties were pointing out that the consumption/marketing model of capitalism brought by America (with the Marshall plan) forced France to become a "fully" capitalist nation while it was, before, defined by old traditions free of the "marketing" aspect of things. Now I completly agree with that argument, but it does not mean that I think that the traditional society that we were prior to the capitalism of "seduction" was actually a better society. I actually think Soral stole most of his argument from Clouscard's book.
Like I said, there are absolutely various points of view within feminism, but that's exactly what Soral is not saying in order to discard "feminism" as a whole. And again, the woes he accuses this "bourgeois feminism" of find their origin in the capitalist system as it works in our societies and not in the feminism he mentions. If there were no women on Earth, the exact same woes would exist, as they are found today, i.e. afflicting the poorer classes. Feminism, any part of it, is not to blame.
I don't know why you bring up the pithy anecdotes about feminism. You're not going to argue someone into believing that mainstream feminism is more about preserving and advancing female privilege than otherwise admitted or that it ignores women of color using those straw men arguments.
On February 11 2014 21:16 Danglars wrote: I don't know why you bring up the pithy anecdotes about feminism. You're not going to argue someone into believing that mainstream feminism is more about preserving and advancing female privilege than otherwise admitted or that it ignores women of color using those straw men arguments.
Exactly this. If someone wants to talk about feminism, they, and feminists themselves need to realize an important fact: Some people are dicks, and some people are stupid. This means that some feminists are dicks, and don't understand what feminism is about. It's a sad misunderstanding that leads to a lot of the bad feelings towards feminism I think, where some "feminists" will claim things that is totally not in line with what feminism is all about. Feminism /is/ about equalizing society, where there is a lot of inbuilt sexism, and indeed, racism. This does not mean that there are /no/ cases where men are worse off, but feminists would argue that there is still gross unfairness towards women within society. This does not necessarily mean the law, or money, but it could mean something as simple as separating boys and girls in sports as early as primary school, where there is no reason to. This, as you can note, is something that effects males and females, and is not an attempt to demonize the male population. The documentary in the OP is interesting that it notes the women being given an advantage in the race, feminists would argue that this IS in fact unfair, and there should not be an inherent advantage given to either sex. In fact, giving an advantage to the women is an example of sexism, whereby women are assumed to need more time. This again is an example of where the issue of feminism effects both sexes, and is again a case where the male population is not being demonized for being male.
I agree with Zealos for the most part. I personally find it frustrating when I see women showing/linking web articles that pretty much poke fun at men who argue that they have been victims in some way, with the article (or opinion piece, really) making the guys look like petty sooks, just because overall women have suffered more etc. etc. While that may be true, ignoring what the men who may have been mistreated say is only working against equality and some of the women that link such articles, normally capable of plenty of showing reason and perspective, suddenly seem to lose those traits when looking at feminist articles.
The real issue is that many people are shit. Regardless of gender, race and a lot of other things, some people in almost every group* will probably always be shitty. You know who the real enemies are? Shitty people. There's too much throwing of blame at groups where only a small portion of the group is guilty of whatever when it's just numerous individuals in many groups that are to responsible, but those that blame groups in this fashion only add to the problem and encourage more bigotry as a response.
It's just too easy for most people to instead pick on something as a cause and frankly, most people can't be fucked really doing a lot of thinking, so they just assume things that are easy for them instead and nothing really improves.
One thing I really hate about feminism (and I used to consider myself a feminist) is that surely any feminist who is really a moral sort of person would be willing to call themselves something like an egalitarian, wouldn't they? If you're basically for equal rights, why specifically identify yourself as being for just the rights of one group?
Obviously, movement groups and rights groups can focus on one group but wouldn't individual people with a real conscience identify themselves as egalitarians or "humanists" instead?
I might continue to watch more of the parts of this series, having watched the first two as linked on the first page of this thread, but yes, while there are some arguments that are not unreasonable, such as that is is unfair for female tennis players to argue for equal pay from 3 sets instead of 5 rather than the men's load being reduced or women's load being increased in order to get the same pay, most of the ideas so far are utter baloney and sound madly conspiratorial.
On February 12 2014 01:13 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: If you're basically for equal rights, why specifically identify yourself as being for just the rights of one group?
Obviously, movement groups and rights groups can focus on one group but wouldn't individual people with a real conscience identify themselves as egalitarians or "humanists" instead?
Many feminists obviously don't care about equality and just want to further women's rights, but many of them truly are fighting for equality, yet still call themselves feminists are I can think of two reasons for that. 1- They're particularly interested in women's rights - you have to pick your battles. They focus on gender equality rather than gay rights for instance and other such issues. 2- Feminism is not only about equality, it's also about gender roles, and regarding that topic, opinions are all over the place. Some brands of feminists say that men and women should split all area of human activity 50/50 between men and women, other brands of feminists say that men and women are different but equal and part of feminist's work is to make the role of females to be less frowned upon. That's not to say there's a brand of feminists that agree with gender roles, but they don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that we should force a perfect 50/50 "equality".
The problem at this point is that feminism is a hollow term because it encompasses an incredibly large variety of conflicting opinions and world views and its advocates like to say that other feminist groups which holds values that are different than theirs are not real feminists, in a "no true Scotsman" fashion.
It's inconceivable to me that under the umbrella of "feminism", there both the people who say women should be career driven and housewives are dominated by the patriarchy and those who say women should do what they want. How does one word describe all those fucking people? And how can you really call yourself a feminist if you try to devalue the work of women who raise children and take care of the home? I myself prefer career women but it seems to me like a feminist should defend women's rights, not one type of women.
And so decent "feminists" are gender equality activists who are lumped together with the nutters under the word "feminism".
1 - Agreed about which battles you really fight, but that's what the [choosing of groups to be a part of] bit is about. That doesn't stop the individual feminists from instead calling themselves egalitarians but being a part of a feminist group or pushing for women's rights, but I personally never hear these terms from women that also call themselves feminists, only those who shun the term feminism for all the issues it has. I would strongly disagree with the idea that you have to pick your battles when talking about what you support, but agree that you need to when working with a group such as a women's rights group.
2 - Gender roles are part of equality and rights, I don't see why they'd be considered separate except for those that have little interest in the issues anyway. As an attempted example, politicians who might decide what to concede/make political bills for might not care much about changing gender roles (doing anything to encourage the acceptance of stay-at-home fathers as a less common example) but might support changes like quotas for women in high-up positions within businesses. That of course leads onto the issue that unless you have (equal) quotas for men as well, it's (supposedly) attempting to enforce equality but through rules that are sexist bullshit. Even if everyone happily accepted the idea that there would be quotas for both genders, sometimes, there might just be more highly skilled men than highly skilled women, or more highly skilled women than highly skilled men for those positions, which is where minimum quotas end up becoming detrimental and limiting to business/progress and detrimental to the opportunities for those most appropriate for any given job.
I was very disappointed to find a girl (woman...but the attitudes she has...-_-) who posts youtube videos about Japan talking about a woman's right to be a housewife and how in Canada she used to feel like all her friends and family treated her like that's not a fair option, yet attempted to ridicule any equality arguments about men's lack of social allowance to "be a houseman" or anything of the sort maybe in any country (and ever in history) by telling them to "put on a dress then". Yeuch, so stupid.
Couldn't agree more with all your other points and the last is exactly why it baffles me that there are seemingly very intelligent women who don't kick up more of a fuss about the other types or call themselves something other than feminist, as if they just wilfully ignore the existence of the batty ones or assume all claims of horrid "feminists" are made by terrible men.
They call themselves feminists because they are fighting for female rights. This is the same as fighting for equality, because women are disadvantaged in a lot of key areas. It's not about a battle for power, even though it may appear that way in a lot of cases. There are a lot of women that can get very passionate about the subject, and come across as pretty aggressive and unhelpful, and this turns men away from the cause. However, the cause itself is a noble one imo, and if you can see past the few cases where it is taken to extremes, you will find it is very reasonable, and in some cases, it helps the male cause too.
It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
On February 12 2014 02:18 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: 1 - Agreed about which battles you really fight, but that's what the [choosing of groups to be a part of] bit is about. That doesn't stop the individual feminists from instead calling themselves egalitarians but being a part of a feminist group or pushing for women's rights, but I personally never hear these terms from women that also call themselves feminists, only those who shun the term feminism for all the issues it has. I would strongly disagree with the idea that you have to pick your battles when talking about what you support, but agree that you need to when working with a group such as a women's rights group.
Sorry to have to say that but fighting for "equality" as a whole will never accomplish anything because politics doesn't work off of good will. Social change happens off of specific demands articulated by people. So if you have a bunch of people fighting for an overly broad term like equality, the folks in parliament will just jerk off and do nothing.
2 - Gender roles are part of equality and rights, I don't see why they'd be considered separate except for those that have little interest in the issues anyway. As an attempted example, politicians who might decide what to concede/make political bills for might not care much about changing gender roles (doing anything to encourage the acceptance of stay-at-home fathers as a less common example) but might support changes like quotas for women in high-up positions within businesses. That of course leads onto the issue that unless you have (equal) quotas for men as well, it's (supposedly) attempting to enforce equality but through rules that are sexist bullshit. Even if everyone happily accepted the idea that there would be quotas for both genders, sometimes, there might just be more highly skilled men than highly skilled women, or more highly skilled women than highly skilled men for those positions, which is where minimum quotas end up becoming detrimental and limiting to business/progress and detrimental to the opportunities for those most appropriate for any given job.
I was just saying that there's a difference between "equal" and "different but equal". It can be argued that feminism is not only about equality because there's an element of wanting to change the culture, to set new standards. For instance, taking women out of the kitchen is a cultural thing - it's not necessarily a superior one, or about equality.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
I think the preconceived lense is exactly the issue here...
On February 12 2014 03:20 Zealos wrote: They call themselves feminists because they are fighting for female rights. This is the same as fighting for equality, because women are disadvantaged in a lot of key areas. It's not about a battle for power, even though it may appear that way in a lot of cases. There are a lot of women that can get very passionate about the subject, and come across as pretty aggressive and unhelpful, and this turns men away from the cause. However, the cause itself is a noble one imo, and if you can see past the few cases where it is taken to extremes, you will find it is very reasonable, and in some cases, it helps the male cause too
And when (to make an example) american colleges adopts extremist feminist ideas, (even though you don't agree with the ideas) you just shrug it off and don't see it as a problem, simply because "true feminists are not like that".
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
I'm saying your "how come if they're both drunk the man is automatically to blame" is a complete misreading of the example given and is either due to some twisted unconscious warping of the words to fit your own preconceived ideas or out of extreme idiocy. The example clearly described one as active, the other as passive, and yet your reading of it is that the man is to blame on the basis of his sex and that the woman is not to blame on the basis of her sex.
Now I've explained the words to you are you willing to consider that maybe the fact that one was active and the other passive might have been the reason the man was considered to blame there or are you going to go full retard?
Also at no point did I say that drunkenness automatically makes a scenario rape. When I gave my views I specified that there was no consent and I did so in a gender blind way. See here
if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong.
Sokrates again read into that that I believe all activities when drunk are rape and that whenever that happens the man is a rapist, those words were not there.
On February 12 2014 06:41 Sokrates wrote: It is interesting how the 2014 internet discussion culture shriveled up into "citation needed" and "strawman". I dont even know why it is worth having a discussion here anymore.
Why is that a "strawman" it is an article in the newyorktimes and the article makes it pretty clear that assuming that the man is always the rapist while both are drunk is the most normal thing in the world? Doesnt anyone see a problem with that?
In the example given a drunk man was acting upon a drunk woman who was passive. Of course there is nothing wrong with the assumption that the active participant is the one to blame and that the passive person, who in the example isn't doing anything at all, is not to blame. Now maybe you could expand upon it and add some more to the example to make her to blame, like her pointing a gun at him and ordering him to paw at her, but that's not there in the example.
So yes, if there is no consent between two drunk people then the one doing the thing is the one in the wrong and the one being done to is the one not in the wrong. This isn't about man and woman, this is about active and passive and if you can't get that then you need to take off whatever preconceived lenses you're using and read it again because whatever context you're adding in your head to change the scenario is not there.
So what you are basically implying is that there are millions of rapists out there at every weekend having sex after clubbing.
Wow that is really the world i wanna live in. We better hire police officers that patrol clubs and parties looking out for drunk people making out and prevent capital crimes.
I'm saying your "how come if they're both drunk the man is automatically to blame" is a complete misreading of the example given and is either due to some twisted unconscious warping of the words to fit your own preconceived ideas or out of extreme idiocy. The example clearly described one as active, the other as passive, and yet your reading of it is that the man is to blame on the basis of his sex and that the woman is not to blame on the basis of her sex.
Now I've explained the words to you are you willing to consider that maybe the fact that one was active and the other passive might have been the reason the man was considered to blame there or are you going to go full retard?
The man is expected to be the active part and is most likely the active part. So asides from that your definition of said rape still is totally out of proportion no matter if you blame the man or the woman. What you are basically saying is that every sex or every making out under the influcence of alcohol is considered rape beause there will always be a part that is more active than the other. Also note that you said drunk people cannot consent, so there has to be a rapist involved, even if you make it genderblind this is still fucked up.
On February 12 2014 07:20 farvacola wrote: It's convenient to pretend that consent is unusual Sokrates, but that doesn't make it so. Try again with a better hyperbole.
Go to a random club or party and see how people behave there. There is a shitload of drunk people making out and having sex later. We better put a stop to that.
What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
EPT
